apgli.ap.gov.in

**adv.singh** · 02-01-2010, 11:42 AM

CC.No.166 of 2009

BETWEEN:

Lakkaraju Sivarama Prasad,

S/o L. Kimachala Rao,

R/o D.No.22-6-59,

Krishnarao Naidu Street,

Kothapet, Tenali,

Guntur district. … Complainant

and

1. The Director,

Insurance, APGLI,

Burgula Ramakrishna Rao Building,

‘B’ block, 4th floor, Tankbund Road,

Hyderabad.

2. The Joint Director,

APGLI,

5/2 Arundelpet, Guntur. …Opposite Party

This complaint is coming up before us for hearing on 11.11.2009 in the presence of Sri G.K. Prasad, advocate for complainant and of Sri C. Narasimha Reddy, Government Pleader, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri T. Anjaneyulu, President:- This complaint is filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant for refund of an amount of Rs.1015/- with interest thereon and also furnish correct details of premium amounts collected and legal expenses from the Director of Insurance, AP., Hyderabad (APGLI) (OP1) and the Joint Director of APGLI, Guntur (OP2).

The case of the complainant in brief is that he is working as lab technician in District Malaria Office, Guntur. He took an insurance policy bearing No.477981-A in the month of November, 1992 by the 2nd opposite party under which the monthly premium was fixed at Rs.40/-. Again in the year 1994 the complainant has obtained another policy No.477981-B on a monthly premium of Rs.35/- and a sum of Rs.75/- being deducted from his salary from the month of November, 1994 and remitted to the opposite parties. In the year, 2006 the Government of AP released a Memo bearing No.3470/382/Admn.11/05, dated 17-01-06 authorizing APGLI department to issue policies to those proposals submitting after 48 years with a condition that premium being recovered continuously within 48 years.

By inadvertence the office of complainant deducted Rs.250/- fom his salary for few months i.e., from December, 2005 to February, 2007. The complainant gave a report that he had already crossed the age of 48 years by July, 2003 (his date of birth is 01-07-55). The deduction of premium in excess of required amount was stopped. So in all a sum of Rs.175/- was deducted as excess premium from December, 2005 to February, 2007.

The complainant got issued letters from his office to the 2nd opposite party on two occasions i.e., on 25-04-07 and on 07-05-07 respectively, claiming refund of the excess premium paid, but there was no response. The G.O. issued by the Government clearly states that excess premium recovered from the employees those who crossed 48 years shall be refunded by taking necessary steps but the opposite parties kept quite without taking any steps on the representation sent by complainant. Subsequently, the 2nd opposite party sent cheque bearing No.006211, dated 25-03-09 for Rs.1610/- drawn on State Bank of India, Treasury Branch, Guntur in the name of complainant along with Annual Account Slip for the year 2006-07. This annual account slip shows a sum of Rs.250/- deduction from the month of April, 2006 till February, 2007 for 11 months. The opposite parties did not send the account slip for the year 2005-2006. The excess amount being collected from December, 2005 on calculation the total excess amount was Rs.2,625/- against which he has received a sum of Rs.1610/- and still balance of Rs.1015/- is yet to be refunded. The complainant made repeated demands and also visited office of the 2nd opposite party personally for refund of balance amount. The complainant has put to much hardship and humiliation because of in different attitude of the 2nd opposite party. Thus there is deficiency of service. Hence, the complaint.

The opposite parties have filed their version/affidavit in the following manner: It is stated that the premium amounts of the complainant are being recovered with the wrong policy No.417718 upto the present month. This office had issued policy No.477981-A&B but still recoveries of policy holder are being made to the same wrong number (417718) to which the previous years premium recoveries also made (schedule copy of June, 2009 is enclosed). Hence, some previous years recoveries are missing and the computer automatically adjusted recent excess recovery of premium to the previous deficit balance of premium dues and hence this office could not refund the excess amount. Even this excess premium amount is also arrived after clearance of suspense amount as the premiums are continuously recovered with wrong number.

The suspense amount means the amount posted from the schedules with wrong policy numbers or without any policy numbers. This is fault of the concerned drawing and disbursing officers. The drawing officers while deducting premiums prepare schedule of deduction particulars and attach with pay bills. If the policy number noted on the schedules does not match with the names of employees or if wrong policy numbers are noted or in some cases no policy number is noted then in all such cases amounts will be posted with only names of employees and later at the time of settlement of claims, this office will trace out premium deductions of any policy holder on the basis of his name and drawing officer code, voucher number and transfer of premium amount to the correct policy number.

The APGLI premium deducted from salary is only to account adjustment by the treasury department. The District Insurance Office will receive only the schedules of premium recovery particulars of all the employees under each drawing and disbursing officer. Here the District Insurance office is not receiving any cash or cheque payment and not maintaining any bank or cash account. The duty of the district insurance office is only to receive the schedules and take up the work of posting of schedules. The schedules will contain the details of name, policy number and major head number of the concerned department and the drawing and disbursing officer code and recovery of premium amount with date. On the basis of these recovery particulars the district insurance office will undertake the posting of premiums to each employee’s policy number.

In the present case the policy holder has taken only two policies and after enhancement of his premium he has not applied for additional policy and his additional premium amount is treated as excess and will be refunded on submission of prescribed forms duly filled. The regular premium to be paid by the policy holder is only Rs.75 per month, but his premium enhanced to Rs.250/- pm from December,2 005 to January, 2007 (14 months in all Rs.2450/- the policy holder claimed excess for 15 months which is wrong and evidence is enclosed, monthly premium statement from December, 2005 to January, 2007). The policy holder applied for refund of excess amount, then this office after tracing from the suspense account could refund Rs.1610 and the balance Rs.840 was adjusted by the computer to previous years missing credits. The previous missing credits are due to quoting of wrong policy number in the schedules of the policy holder (the evidence enclosed, June, 2009 schedule). Without any particulars the district insurance officer cannot pay any excess amount as per rules in force. However, after making hectic efforts for three days on suspense clearance of this particular policy holder by a senior accountant on the basis of available details (name and major head and DDO code) could trace out previous missing premiums for Rs.940/- and refund form has been sent to the policy holder for claiming the amount. Generally, this suspense clearance process is done to every policy holder at the time of his final settlement.

It is further to submit that the APGLI scheme is a compulsory insurance scheme being implemented by the Government to safeguard its own employees and there is no profit motive. The duty of the District Insurance Offices is only to receive the schedules of premium deduction particulars from the district treasury office and get the premiums posted as per the details noted in the schedules. The APGLI department is not a separate entity like LIC or GIC or AP Transco etc., it is purely operating as a Government Department. This office is not selling any services and hence the APGLI policy holders are not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. In view of the above facts and information submitted this complaint is not maintainable and further the balance excess refund claim of the policy is under process. Hence, it is requested to dismiss the complaint without costs.

Both sides have filed their respective affidavits. On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-11 are marked and on behalf of opposite party Ex.B-1 is marked.

Now the points for determination are that,

1. Whether this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the amount as sought for?

3. To what relief?

POINT No.1:- This issue goes to root of the case as objection is raised in respect of jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the dispute. The learned Government Pleader relied upon a decision of Hyderabad Forum rendered in CD.727/04 in between Smt Manjula vs. Assistant Director/Insurance and Commissioner, State Insurance, APGLI, Government of AP.

And another decision of AP State Commission in a case between Deputy Director of Insurance, Regional Office at Hyderabad and Sri Byram Rajanna in FA.No.197/01.

In the 1st case no policy as such was issued in the name of deceased employee. It is also observed that deceased employee did not hire any services from the opposite party and any consideration paid.

In the 2nd case also no policy was issued for enhanced premium vide G.O. Ms.No.368, 15-11-94.

The AP State Commission in a decision reported in 1998 ALD (Cons.) 24 Director of Insurance, A.P. Government, Hyderabad vs. G. Vijaya Lakshmi held that a complaint against AP Life Insurance Department for non-payment of insurance amount can be entertained under the Act, since it is a service within the meaning of the term U/S 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act.

The above decision is relied upon on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court which define the term as to what constitutes the ‘service’ and held that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The point is answered accordingly.

POINTS 2 & 3:- In the instant case, the complainant is not asking for policy amount, but enhanced premium @250/- which was recovered out of his salary from December, 2005 till February, 2007 and remitted to the opposite party. The complainant rely upon Memo No.3470/382/Admn.11/2005, dated 17-01-06 authorising APGLI Department which speaks about issuing policies to the proposals submitted after the age of 48 years with a condition that premium recovered before the age of 48 years. As the complainant crossed the age of 48 years by July, 2003 itself the excess recovery of the premium was stopped. The excess amount is Rs.175/- pm which was deducted out of his salary from the month of December, 2005 to February, 2007. On making due representations he was paid Rs.1610/- by the Department. According to him there is still balance of Rs.1015/-which has not been paid inspite of making several representations and on his personal approach. Therefore, complainant claiming this amount of Rs.1015/- with interest @12% p.a., apart from compensation for mental agony and legal expenses.

The case of Department is that the amounts were being remitted by quoting wrong policy No.417718 in the schedules as against correct policy No.4771981 due to quoting of wrong number, the premium of individual automatically goes to the suspense account. Therefore, they say, concerned drawing and disbursing officer have to verify the correctness of policy Number of their staff and send the schedules. No doubt, they do admit that some delay has occurred in settlement of excess refund claim but this is not a willful delay as alleged. They attribute latches and lapses to concerned drawing officer of the complainant. Further, it is submitted that due to availability of less staff and priority being given to the retired employees in settling their claims apart from death claims, such delay is bound to occur. It is also their case that software has been developed to trace out the suspense amount with the details of recovery particulars. According to them there is still balance of Rs.940/- but not Rs.1015/- and they are ready to refund the same to complainant.

It is noticed from the above complaint that the drawing and disbursing officer i.e., the employer of the complainant is not made a party to the above proceedings. The opposite parties attribute lapses and latches on the part of drawing and disbursing officer for wrongly quoting the policy number of complainant while preparing the schedules and remitting same to their Department. The complainant no way denied this aspect either in his affidavit or any other affidavits. Though he has filed pay particular statement for the year 2006-2007 vide Ex.A-11 it does not mention about policy number issued under APGLI. The version filed by the opposite parties would make it clear that the excess deducted premiums were being remitted by showing wrong policy number as such, they were missing credits in regular account slips and this amount was being given credit in the suspense account. Therefore, the opposite parties cannot be found fault for latches committed by drawing and disbursing officer of the complainant.

In the circumstances of case facts, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties are hereby directed to refund the balance excess amount of Rs.940/- forthwith to the complainant and shall also issue account slips every year regularly till the date of his retirement or the maturity of policies which ever may be the earlier. Rest of the claim of complainant is dismissed.

2. Each party shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to Junior Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 18th day of November, 2009.

**adv.singh** · 02-01-2010, 11:56 AM

CC.No.466 of 2007

BETWEEN:

Y.S.C. Bose Reddy,

S/o Ramalinga Reddy,

R/o Flat No.406,

Ramakrishna Towers,

1st line, Vidyanagar,

Guntur. … Complainant

and

1. The District Insurance Officer,

A.P.G.L.I., Govt. of A.P.,

H.No.6-4-101, 1st floor,

5/2 Arundelpet, Guntur.

2. District Leprosy Officer,

Department of Medical & Health,

District Medical & Health Office,

Nagarampalem, Guntur. …Opposite Parties

This complaint is coming up before us for hearing on 06.11.2009 Sri B. K. Kishore, advocate for complainant and of Sri Ch. Bolla Rao, Government pleader are having on record, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R
Per Sri T. Anjaneyulu, President:- This complaint is U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on the opposite party for payment of Rs.12,00,000/- as compensation with interest thereon and expenses.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant worked as non-medical supervisor (Dy, Para Medical Officer) of Government Leprosy Control Unit, Macherla in the unit of 2nd opposite party. He has taken voluntary retirement from the service on 31-3-01. During his service he has worked at various places in Guntur district and at other places of Andhra Pradesh. As per Government norms every employee of State Government should contribute their subscription through APGLI basing on the salary of the employee to the 1st opposite party i.e., the District Insurance Officer. The complainant has worked in the Department for more than 29 years in various places. His monthly subscription at Rs.28/- was being deducted towards APGLI in the beginning of his service and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.64/- pm. He was also allotted policy No.434076. The monthly subscriptions were deducted regularly till the date of retirement. The complainant has not taken any loan from the 1st opposite party.

It is submitted that after his retirement he did not receive any amount from the 1st opposite party. He has approached the 1st opposite party personally number of times, the staff of the 1st opposite party did not respond properly. The complainant sent a letter dated 11-10-06 requesting to settle the account of APGLI and the copy of said letter was also marked to the 1st opposite party. Both opposite parties have received but they did not respond to the same.

On 2-1-07, the complainant has applied for details of APGLI account under R.T.I. Act, 2005. Both the opposite parties have received application of the complainant and the 1st opposite party sent a letter dated 5-3-07 along with cheque issued in favour of complainant for Rs.12,776/- bearing No.019748, dt.5-03-07. The 1st opposite party sent a statement of account from 1989 to 2000. The complainant surprised to look at statement sent by the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party did not furnish full information regarding the account. After receipt of account copy he again approached the 2nd opposite party to furnish full details of statement of account by his letter dated 15-3-07 under R.T.I. Act, 2005. The 2nd opposite party addressed a letter to the 1st opposite party regarding particulars of subscriptions recovered under APGLI vide lr.Ref.No.Spl./2007, dt.31-03-07. The complainant once again sent a letter to the 1st opposite party requesting to issue a cheque for remaining amount with interest which is pending with them. Surprisingly the 1st opposite party sent a letter dated 10-04-07 to the complainant stating to furnish the details of premiums under sub.A/c with Major Head/voucher Nos./Challan Nos./date of premium particulars deducted.

The complainant submits that he worked as executive employee in the Department of 2nd opposite party. All such details got to be maintained by the concerned department only. He has no personal knowledge regarding transactions between the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party about deduction of premiums with treasury account. The 1st opposite party is well aware of the same, but in order to evade their responsibility required the complainant to furnish the same. The above acts constitute deficiency and negligence of service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has suffered mental agony and also financial loss. The complainant again wrote a letter dated 13-04-07 to both the opposite parties making request to settle the claim. But they did not do so. Therefore, complainant is claiming Rs.7,00,000/- towards deficiency and negligence of opposite party and Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony, pain and suffering, in all Rs.12,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

1st opposite party filed its version/affidavit through its Deputy Director. It is stated that the complainant who worked as D.P.M.O. GLC Unit, Macherla voluntarily retired on 31-3-01. He was contributing a sum of Rs.28/- pm towards APGLI policy No.434076 with effect from 1989-90. The subscriber has applied for claim with policy No.434076 on 11-10-06. The case was settled and cheque was sent to the complainant on 05-03-07 vide Cheque b.No.AO 19748, dt.05-03-07 for Rs.12,776/-. It is further submitted that the A.P. State Commission, Hyderabad and District Consumer Forum III at Hyderabad in F.A.No.197/01 against CD.No.1479/2000 and CD.No.727/04 respectively have pronounced that the District Forum has no jurisdiction since APGLI policy holder is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act as there is no hiring of service of the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to file this case.

The complainant has made false allegations claiming Rs.12,00,000/-. All the allegations made in the complaint are baseless. This is not a consumer dispute. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

OP2 has filed a memo to adopt the version of 1st opposite party. Both sides have filed their respective affidavits. On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-6 are marked and on behalf of opposite party Exs.B-1 to B-4 are marked.

Now the points for consideration are that,

1. Whether this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the amount as sought for?

3. To what relief?

POINT No.1:- This issue goes to root of the case as objection is raised in respect of jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the dispute. The learned Government Pleader relied upon a decision of Hyderabad Forum rendered in CD.727/04 in between Smt Manjula vs. Assistant Director/Insurance and Commissioner, State Insurance, APGLI, Government of AP.

In this case the complainant is the wife of late Dr. M. Srinivasa Naik, Former Medical Officer, Martur, Prakasam District filed a complaint claiming insurance sum from APGLI after death of her husband. The APGLI requested the Medical Officer, PHC, Martur to furnish the information with regard to policy, date of death of employee etc. It is informed by the employer that the deceased sent proposal form, as such, the policy was not issued even though he had regularly contributed Rs.125/- towards APGLI from May, 2002 to October, 2002 at Martur as a new case. The APGLI also raised similar objection about jurisdiction to entertain the case. In that case it was observed on facts that there was no evidence that any APGLI policy was issued in the name of deceased employee. It was also held that the deceased employee did not hire any services from the opposite party and any consideration paid. Therefore, there is no hiring of service from the opposite party by the husband of complainant. In that circumstance of the case, the complaint was dismissed.

But in the instant case, complainant was issued policy and as he was regularly contributing amounts towards APGLI which is mandatory for every Government employee as per G.O.Ms.No.368, 15-11-94 and subsequent memos issued by the Department of Finance, A.P. Government.

The learned Government Pleader for the opposite parties next relied upon the decision reported by AP State Commission in the case of Deputy Director of Insurance, Regional Office at Hyderabad and Sri Byram Rajanna in FA.No.197/01, a similar issue was raised about jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to entertain such kind of disputes. The counsel appearing for APGLI therein relied upon earlier decision of State Commission rendered in FA.160/96 dated 20-05-96 in which it was held that, complainant is not a consumer. The said decision is said to have been held up by the National Commission in RP.No.604/96, dt.20-01-97, in that context the State Commission while abiding by the said Judgement held that complainant is not a consumer.

But as examined on facts of the case, complainant was originally contributing a sum of Rs.112/- pm., from 22-09-88 and obtained a policy. Subsequently, he has enhanced Rs.88/- from February, 1996 and demanded for revised policy. As per G.O.Ms.No.368, dated 15-11-94 certain restrictions imposed in respect of age group of employees in between 21 to 48 years. It was the contention of opposite party that as per the said GO revised policy can be issued for enhanced amount of Rs.200/-. In that context the above Judgement was rendered by the State Commission.

In the instant case, there is no dispute about issuing policy b.No.434076 A in favour of complainant. The State Commission in a decision reported in 1998 ALD (Cons.) 24 Director of Insurance, A.P. Government, Hyderabad vs. G. Vijaya Lakshmi held that a complaint against AP Life Insurance Department for non-payment of insurance amount can be entertained under the Act, since it is a service within the meaning of the term U/S 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act. It has relied upon number of decisions of the Apex Court in order to know as to what constitutes the ‘service’. Therefore, we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

POINT No.2:- The case of complainant is that he took voluntary retirement from service on 31-03-01. While he was in service he was contributing Rs.28/- pm in the beginning and subsequently as his salary increased the premium of insurance was also increased to a tune of Rs.64/- pm., by the time of his retirement. He claims that he has approached number of times the 1st opposite party at Guntur for payment of policy amount, but they have not responded properly. Having waited for sufficient time he sent a letter to his employer on 11-10-06 for settlement of his claim while marking copy to 1st opposite party. But there was no response. Thereafter he claims to have applied for furnishing the details of his account on 01-02-07 under Right to Information Act, 2005 and thereupon he has received a letter from 1st opposite party on 05-03-07 wherein a cheque for Rs.12,776/- was sent while enclosing premium settlement under Ex.A-1. But complainant astonished on seeing at the statement of premium which is not in complete. As such, he again approached his employer i.e., 2nd opposite party to furnish full details of his account right from the beginning by addressing letter dated 15-03-07 (A2). In this letter it is stated that he formerly worked as Non-Medical Supervisor (D.P.M.O), Government Leprosy Control Unit, Macherla and retired from service on 31-03-01, while he was working amounts were recovered towards APGLI from his salary. He has also furnished the period and the centers where he worked. Further, it is stated that Leprosy Control units were abolished and entire record is with the District Leprosy Office is at Guntur as such, he requested to furnish detail information as to recovery of premiums month wise. Thereupon, 2nd opposite party addressed a letter to the 1st opposite party on 31-03-07 vide Ex.A-3 stating that complainant has subscribed to APGLI @Rs.28/- pm in the following stations as detailed below towards policy A/c.No.434076-A. Hence, final claim may be settled to the individual under intimation to that office.

Thereupon the complainant once again sent a letter to the 1st opposite party stating that difficulties faced by him in approaching their office for refund of amount, though he has applied on 11-10-06 for the policy amount and same has not been responded properly. It is also stated that he has approached their office number of times, but proved futile. Lastly, he has requested to examine his case once again and clear the balance amount with interest. On receipt of such letter 1st opposite party sent a letter dated 10-04-07 vide Ex.-5 stating that premium particulars were not available in their office at Guntur, as such, he was required to furnish information with regard to remission of premiums from May, 1982 to March, 1989. The complainant replied to that letter stating that he is a retired employee and it is not possible to submit information as required. He has claimed the policy amount on the basis of information furnished by his employer vide reference No.3, as such, the same may be settled at the earliest time vide Ex.A-6 dated 13-04-07.

The opposite party relied upon form No.1 vide Ex.B-1 which is an application for refund of amount to be filled by the subscriber. In this form the subscriber mentioned his policy number, date of maturity of the policy, date of termination of service 31-03-01. The last deduction of premium of Rs.60/-. Further he has also given details as to the place where he worked and its period. This application was filled up on 11-10-06. Thereupon the 1st opposite party while computing the policy amount deducted certain amount and sent a cheque for Rs.12,776/- on 05-03-07 as stated supra. This is evident from Ex.B-2 which shows that the sum assured, bonus amount aggregating in all Rs.14,168.68 ps., and deduction of total amount of Rs.1,392/- and net amount is Rs.12,776/-. Ex.B-4 is the statement of treasury account.

From the above material on record, it appears that as complainant retired voluntarily on 31-03-01 and as policy maturity date is 04-07-02, the claim has been settled as surrender/present value of the policy interms of Rule 22 of APGLI Fund Rules vide cheque bearing No.A019748, dated 05-03-07 and the said cheque has been encashed by the complainant on 15-3-07. This is evident from the letter addressed to this Forum by the O/O Joint Director of Insurance, Guntur on 19-12-07, the calculation also shown including the bonus amount. According to them no terminal bonus and bonus for breaking period of Triennium was not allowed for surrender claim as per GO.Ms.No.160 Finance & Planning FW (ADMN II) Dept.,, dated 14-05-96. The copy is not placed before us as it is not available with them.

As seen from the case of the complainant, he has been going round the office of 1st opposite party ever since, he has retired and ultimately made a written representation on 11-10-06, 01-02-07 and on 15-03-07. Though he has furnished all details i.e., place of employment including the period, the 1st opposite party persistently asking for information about remittance of premiums under Major Head, treasury token etc. As seen from the above material, 2nd opposite party also furnished information required and requested for settlement of claim. The case of complainant is that as to whatever amount sent by the 1st opposite party is not full amount of his policy and still there is balance pending with them. As he contributed at Rs.60/- but the 1st opposite party is not making it clear whether it has issued any subsequent policies for enhanced premium amount which was being deducted from out of his salary by the time of his retirement. This material is lacking on record. Thus we observe that there is any amount of lethargy, lapses and carelessness in functioning of 1st opposite party to settle the claims of employees under APGLI scheme. Certainly this would cause physical strain, mental agony, pain and suffering which is to be compensated suitably.

In the light of aforesaid discussions, this complaint is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 1st opposite party shall verify and reconcile with the statement of account on the information furnished by the 2nd opposite party as to the deduction of the premium amount and settle the balance claim for enhanced premium as early as possible.

2. We also direct the 1st opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant. Rest of the claim for compensation is dismissed.

3. The amounts ordered in item No.2 shall be paid within a period of six weeks failing which they shall carry interest @9% p.a., from the date till the date of realization.

Dictated to steno typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 9th day of November, 2009.

sunderpaul · 07-08-2010, 10:03 PM

Dear Sir,
The APGLI web is accepting only 8 digits where as almost every policy is of 9 digits. Even if we tried to go through name, father's name and date of birth it is not giving the details of the particulars of the policy. This seems to be a big deception. Please look into the issue and take earliest legal action against such deception.
Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,
M. R. Sunder Paul
H/O B P Florence (Policy No: 647362031)
Father's Name: B Paul
H.No. 8-3-42/A, Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar.
Mobile: 9491660000

chunduri.srihari · 08-03-2010, 05:46 PM

my account slip for2008-2009.

kothapallypadma · 08-28-2010, 08:09 AM

whenever i try to get polocy details it is simply showing try later. what is the use how to obtain

POKURU RAMBABU · 09-28-2010, 05:32 PM

I have enrolled as subscriber in the name of P.Rambabu s/o. Venkateswarlu with a date of birth 01-07-1963 with effect from 29-7-95 under Policy NO.487963-A with a premieum of Rs.100/-per month with a maturity date of 30-6-2021 accrodingly the premieum was deducting from my salary since 7/95 accordingly a bond was also received from the Directorate of Insurance. For obtaining policy details when login, it say that there is no any valid records. kindly verfiy and inform the status. thanking you sir,

B. G. S. prasada Rao · 03-02-2011, 11:00 PM

On verification of Annual Accounts Slips, it is observed that the premium for the Months of March'2010 (Rs.350/-) & October'2010 to Jan'2011 were not credited into APGLI A/c No. 304389. I thererefore request for crediting the same at the earliest.

N. MOHAN REDDY · 04-18-2011, 12:36 PM

Sir,
My policy no. is 273169/ABCD. My policy has been enhanced from Rs. 350/- to 750/- w.e.f Aug, 2010. Enhanced proposal form was also submitted, but till now no policy bond is received. Please give me a reply

apgli.ap.gov.in

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

apgli.ap.gov.in

Deception

complient

details of APGLI Policy No.487963-A

Missing Credits in APGLI A/c No. 304389

APGLI enhanced policy not received - Reg.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions